Since there seems to be an interested party, I'll lay out what I have gained from reading Plato and Aristotle.
There is a difference between Plato's theory of forms and Parmenides doctrine of ideas. I gather from Aristotle that Plato fell in with the Pythagoreans and developed his own theory which is the one Pirsig takes issue with. This lends alittle more clarity to RMP's arguements. we can discuss what those differences are if that is where your intrests lie. Or We can discuss what Aristotle meant by "truth and the appearence of the truth", which boils down to "you can't judge a book by its cover" which takes into account the relativism of perception. The resolve being that basing judgements on what "is" is a logic trap and what we should be looking at is what holds the most meaning. And It was concluded that since intelligibility(understanding) was possible in a perceptable world of flux that the nature of the good must posses an order, it must have attributes and the very idea of understanding became the most closely related attribute of the good because it seemed a natural emergence and extension of it and to exercise it was pleasurable. Truth is a highly valued pleasure. which is an interesting take on it. That is a thread all it's own too. Glad someone else is interested in the roots of Philosophy because it makes a huge difference in how one understands Robert Pirsigs work, Pragmatism and the central reasons of why we hold certain beliefs and which of those is the best to hold more tightly than others. -Ron . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
